IPM Achievement Award Winners Announced

CALIFORNIA NEWS IPM Achievement Award Winners Announced

Humane Wildlife Control Inc. of Moss Landing, founded in 2013 by Duane Titus and Rebecca Dmytryk, is one of five winners of a state award given for achievements in reducing risk from pesticide use.

On Feb. 18, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation announced the winners of the IPM Achievement Award recognizing their use of integrated pest management, a method that reduces chemical pesticide use by choosing preventative and natural strategies.

Titus and Dmytryk have chosen to not use rodenticides for structural rodent and wildlife management. Instead, their company uses live-trapping, one-way exits, and biological control to remove and exclude rodents.

Dmytryk contends the non-chemical methods are effective long-term and prevent re-infestation.

“We are at an inflection point in the evolution of pest management in California and greater use of integrated pest management techniques will be fundamental to this transition,” said DPR Director Val Dolcini. “I congratulate this year’s award winners for helping lead this transition and for using innovative and sustainable pest management techniques that are both effective and safer for the environment.” n

Duane Titus and Rebecca Dmytryk

“Recall” from page 21

Assuming there will be a governor’s recall election in 2021, the political wildcard is the status of COVID-19 in California.

In the January PPIC Survey, about half of likely voters say that

COVID-19 is the most important issue for the governor and legislature to work on in 2021.

Currently, Governor Newsom has mixed reviews for his handling of this issue (50% approve, 47% disapprove). And less than three in ten give the state government an excellent or good rating for its handling of the

COVID-19 vaccine distribution.

In contrast, seven in ten approve of the way that the pandemic is being handled by Joe Biden in his early days of presidential leadership.

Deep in the Weeds

So, what are the key differences between these two surveys, much deconstructed and dissected in political circles, both produced by very fine pollsters? (For what it’s worth, the dispositive 538 pollster ratings show that PPIC has about the same high rating as the now defunct Field Poll had, but enjoys a much better rating than Berkeley.)

PPIC uses live interviews and random digit dialing, which gives every Every pollster has their own com- address and will go to the trouble of telephone exchange (land line and cell bination of questions to try to make filling out the survey online. phone) an equal chance of being surveyed, sure they distinguish who is and who They have the same problem that and they use an established method to is not a voter, but it’s as much art as it live calling has of Trumpistas, who don’t get someone from the household on the is science. want to participate at all so their views phone. In addition, some people are so sus- can’t even be given weight to represent

This is classic polling methodology, picious of authorities, institutions and their share of the population. developed over decades to ensure that researchers they won’t ever participate in Moreover, online surveys can’t claim a random sample of the population is a survey, even when the call is from the to represent a random sample of voters surveyed. Public Policy Institute of California and because not every voter has an equal

But it has become increasingly more not some “partisan” or egghead caller chance of being surveyed. difficult (and expensive) to get people to like, say, the University of California So, they have to construct a repretake phone surveys. Berkeley. sentative sample based on sophisticated

PPIC’s response rate in its latest IGS, on the other hand, can’t afford use of variables like age, gender, location, survey was about 5% for landline calls the huge cost of live surveys (for the education, etc. and 3% for cell- most part) and so What this method does know for phones (although [PPIC] is classic polling has turned to online sure is they’re dealing with actual voters for those in the methodology, developed polling, with sophis- and even how often they have voted, all sample who had par- over decades to ensure that ticated abilities to of which is in the voter file. ticipated in a prior survey it was higher — 44% for landlines and 25% for cells). a random sample of the population is surveyed. But it has become increastarget and engage voters in the actual voter file from the California Secretary There are many more issues that confront pollsters using either method. Needless to say, polling has become a hugely difficult endeavor, which the most

In addition, poll- ingly more difficult (and of State. recent presidential campaign revealed sters determine who expensive) to get people to But they have to starkly. is and who is not a take phone surveys. invite about 190,000 But this much we know for certain: registered voter (or a voters to participate Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing voters who likely voter) by asking questions respon- to get a sample of 10,000 voters. And they no longer thinks he’s the bee’s knees. dents may or may not answer truthfully, can only invite voters who have listed an And the only way he can guarantee like: email address, which is now about half survival in office is to make people

Are you registered to vote? What the registered voters. believe that California is doing a better party are you registered in? How much So, their effective response rate is job of containing the coronavirus, disare you following the news? Do you plan also about 5%, and it’s a pre-screened tributing vaccine, opening schools and to vote the next election? group of people who have listed an email businesses and slowing the death toll. n

“Minimum Wage” from page 20 • That net increase would result from higher pay ($509 billion) for people who were employed at higher hourly wages, offset by lower pay ($175 billion) because of reduced employment.

In an average week in 2025, the year when the minimum wage would reach $15 per hour, 17 million workers whose wages would otherwise be below $15 per hour would be directly affected, and many of the 10 million workers whose wages would otherwise be slightly above that wage rate would also be affected. At that time, the effects on workers and their families would include: • Employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers, or 0.9 percent, according to CBO’s average estimate; and • The number of people in poverty would be reduced by 0.9 million.

This report also provides CBO’s estimates of its effects on spending for major health care programs, unemployment compensation, Social Security, nutrition programs, other mandatory spending; plus effects on revenues, discretionary outlays for wages of federal workers; net spending for interest; and uncertainty surrounding the budgetary estimates.

The report covers effects on employment, wages of affected workers, distribution of family income, real (inflation-adjusted) output, pries, distribution of labor and capital income and interest rates. n •••

To read the analysis: https://www.cbo. gov/publication/56975